7.  The applicant was born in 1958.
8.  The applicant is the father of M., born in wedlock in November 1987. The family moved in 1989 to the location where the authorities’ measures outlined below took place. In 1990 M.’s mother began to suffer from mental illness, including suicidal behaviour. Occasionally the applicant had to protect M. against the mother’s attempted assaults. As from the beginning of 1991 M. was in part-time day care, which was a support measure for both the child and his parents.
9.  In September 1991 the parents contacted the family guidance centre, where M. was examined on several occasions. They sought help due to the fact that the mother could not cope with the boy because of his restlessness. Following the therapist’s report to the child welfare authorities, the family stopped visiting the centre. In December 1991 the mother was hospitalised until mid-February 1992. Domestic assistance was arranged for the family from mid-January to mid-February 1992. On 2 March 1992 the parents took M. to be examined at the Child Psychiatric Clinic of the Seinäjoki Central Hospital by a psychiatrist, Dr H.L. In May 1992 the mother was hospitalised again. On 21 May 1992 the parents visited Dr H.L.’s surgery and they discussed M.’s situation together with his nanny, his teacher at the day care centre, social welfare official M-L.K., psychologist H.V., family therapist H.H. and Dr H.L. The three last-mentioned were working at the Clinic of the above hospital. At that point the parents opposed M.’s placement for observation in the Clinic, but they expressed a wish that the social welfare authorities would make house calls and that they provide support for the mother in particular. However, in the summer the parents requested that M. be admitted for observation in the Clinic. On 26 August the parents visited Dr H.L.’s surgery and discussed the situation also with Dr L.V. From 21 September to 25 November 1992 M. was placed for observation on account of his behavioural disturbances. Both parents visited him regularly. The examinations disclosed that M. was one to two years late in his development and that he showed signs of insecurity. Moreover, he was clearly emotionally damaged. He was prescribed individual therapy, but he did not receive such therapy at that time.
10.  Meanwhile, the parents initiated divorce proceedings. The applicant was granted custody of M. with the mother’s consent. Following the taking of M. into public care on 24 November 1992, the applicant suffered from a nervous collapse and it appears that he was hospitalised for a short period of time.
11.  On 24 November 1992 the Social Welfare Board (sosiaalilautakunta, socialnämnden) placed M. in public care in pursuance of the Child Welfare Act (lastensuojelulaki, barnskyddslagen; Act no. 683/1983, as amended by Act no. 13/1990). It had obtained an opinion dated 26 October 1992 by Drs H.L. and L.V. The order was based on the mother’s physically and mentally violent behaviour directed against M., on both parents’ incapacity to raise him and on the fact that the support measures provided so far, for instance day care, domestic assistance and contacts with the family guidance centre, had proven insufficient. The public care was aimed at M.’s placement in a substitute family.
12.  The applicant consented to the taking into care, allegedly after severe pressure from social welfare officials. The mother also consented, considering herself unable to care for the child. The decision was not appealed against. On 25 November 1992 M. was moved to a private children’s home (hereinafter “children’s home”) some 120 kilometres away from his home. Both parents visited him regularly. M. was very home-sick. It appears that he began to masturbate. Suspecting the applicant of incest, the Social Welfare Board prohibited the applicant from taking M. home for visits. He was allowed to visit M. once or sometimes twice a month in the children’s home. As from June 1994 he was allowed to take M. home once a month. At no stage of the proceedings did the social welfare officials monitor the interaction between the applicant and M. during the home leave. At the time no written decision was made in respect of the access restrictions. According to the Government, the social welfare authorities’ records of 1 December 1992 show that it was agreed in a meeting, which the applicant attended, that he would visit M. about twice a month, because constant visiting could confuse the child’s situation.
13.  It appears that the personnel of the children’s home were regularly in contact with the Clinic discussing M.’s situation. The applicant was given appointments at the Clinic’s surgery. According to the Government he did not usually attend, which was contested by the applicant.
14.  In February 1993 M. was examined in the Clinic of the above hospital, but the findings did not support the incest suspicion. The following entry dated 11 March 1993 appears in the record of M.’s care as kept by the children’s home:
“... Since the intention is to no longer place [M.] with his parents but with substitute parents, the process of separation from the parents should be commenced. ...”
15.  In a meeting on 29 September 1993 between the authorities concerned, it was noted that M. had made progress. His speech had improved and he had learnt how to play and get along with other children. Due to this progress, his name was removed from the waiting list for treatment.
16.  On 30 March 1994, during his visit to Dr H.L.’s surgery, M. seemed silent and was unable to concentrate on drawing, following which it was decided that M. would see a psychologist. By 28 June 1994 M. had visited the psychologist three times. The outcome of these visits was that it was decided that M., who had been frightened and distressed during the visits, would start school a year later than normal. His psychological state was so weak that he was not able to undergo any cognitive tests.
17.  On 21 September 1993 the applicant requested orally the termination of public care and M.’s return to his home, relying on a psychiatric opinion dated 14 September 1993 by Dr M.L. showing that the applicant’s mental state was now normal and that he was able to assume M.’s care and upbringing. The social welfare officials did not grant the request. According to the Government, the officials explained how to appeal against their refusal. This was contested by the applicant. The applicant’s further request of 25 January 1994 was again refused by the social welfare officials O.K. and M-L.K. by a letter of 21 February 1994. According to the Government, the officials’ letter to the applicant was not a refusal to revoke the care order. It only explained their position in the matter. The applicant contested the two officials’ right to act on the Social Welfare Board’s behalf and repeated his request on 9 March 1994, demanding that the matter be placed before the Board itself.
18.  On 14 April 1994 the Board arranged a meeting in which the applicant and his counsel took part. On 10 June 1994 the Board considered the request. It heard the applicant and the manager L.L. and a nurse of the children’s home. It decided to defer consideration of the request for termination of care pending the outcome of the examination as to whether M. was mature enough to start school. As noted above, the last visit to the psychologist’s took place on 28 June 1994.
19.  On 4 November 1994 the Board continued the examination of the request for termination of public care. It had obtained an opinion by Dr H.L. dated 31 August 1994 according to which M. was seriously mentally disturbed and clearly late in his development. He was therefore in need of therapy in a psychiatric clinic. Prior to issuing the opinion Dr H.L. had interviewed the applicant on 25 August 1994. Dr H.L. considered that the applicant was still not capable of raising M. even with assistance and that it would not be in the child’s best interests “to carry out experiments which would most probably fail”. According to the applicant, Dr H.L. had examined M. two years earlier but not since. However, according to M.’s medical records, M. had visited Dr H.L.’s surgery in March 1994. The Board had also obtained an opinion dated 7 October 1994 by T.T., a psychologist employed by the above Clinic, and written submissions from the applicant, M.’s mother and the children’s home. Moreover, in its meeting, the Board received oral evidence from the applicant, his close acquaintance O.M., the manager L.L. and a nurse of the children’s home and H.H, a family therapist. The applicant in vain requested to have M. examined by an expert other than Dr H.L., the Board considering that M. had already been duly examined. According to the applicant, he and his counsel were not allowed to have questions put to witnesses; nor were they allowed to be present when the witnesses gave oral evidence.
20.  In its decision of 4 November 1994 the Board, finding that M. needed to be raised by someone capable of providing strong parenting in order to develop socially, psychologically and emotionally, decided to maintain the public care. It considered that assistance at the applicant’s home would not be sufficient having regard to M.’s difficulties. However, it held that it was important to M. that the substitute carers should have the applicant’s support in raising him. It further decided to continue preparing for M.’s placement with substitute parents. It also decided not to have M.’s state of health further examined.
21.  The applicant challenged the decision before the Vaasa County Administrative Court (lääninoikeus, länsrätten) and requested an oral hearing for the examination of witnesses. He also requested an examination of M.’s health by a named psychiatrist, A.K. He further requested a stay of execution of the plan to place M. in a substitute family. The applicant recognised M.’s need for psychiatric care but considered that such care could also be provided if M. was allowed to live with him. In its response to the appeal the Board considered that the applicant was not sufficiently capable of raising a child such as M., whose disturbed behaviour required particular skills.
22.  On 25 November 1994 the Board agreed to the applicant’s request that Dr M.L. examine the relationship between the applicant and M. on 30 November 1994. The resultant report found their relationship and interaction to be perfectly normal, M. showing no signs of fearfulness or distrust. To Dr M.L. it appeared that M. felt safe with and visited the applicant readily during his home leave. The applicant was considered to be able to impose discipline and boundaries. Moreover, Dr M.L. questioned the plan to place M. with a substitute family in a situation where the boy’s father was perfectly capable of raising him. He also called into question the appropriateness of Dr H.L.’s opinion of 31 August 1994 that the applicant would most probably fail in raising M. were he to be given such a chance.
23.  On 4 April 1995 the County Administrative Court, having refused the applicant’s above requests, upheld the Board’s decision of 4 November 1994. It considered that the conditions for M.’s continued public care still existed for the reasons stated in the initial care order. The applicant appealed further, again requesting an oral hearing.
24.  On 1 June 1995 M. was moved to a substitute family some 150 kilometres away from the applicant’s home.
25.  On 19 October 1995 the Supreme Administrative Court (korkein hallinto-oikeus, högsta förvaltningsdomstolen) quashed the lower court’s decision to maintain the care order. The case was referred back to the latter court which was directed to hold an oral hearing.
26.  In November 1995 the applicant sought the Board’s permission to have M. examined by a child psychiatrist not previously involved in the case. The aim was to hear M.’s opinion as to the possibility of terminating public care, and to determine the reason behind his occasional unwillingness to visit the applicant’s home. Permission was denied on 25 November 1995, the Board considering that M.’s views had been sufficiently expressed to the substitute parents, to whom he had stated a preference for remaining with them rather than returning to live with the applicant.
27.  In his submission of 14 November 1995 to the County Administrative Court the applicant requested that M.’s opinion as to living with his father be canvassed in a neutral manner and that M. be informed that he would under no circumstances have to move back to the children’s home. At a first hearing on 30 November 1995 the County Administrative Court heard the manager L.L. of the children’s home, Dr H.L. and the substitute parents. The substitute parents stated that they did not consider themselves responsible for supporting the applicant’s and M.’s relationship. The four witnesses heard at the applicant’s request confirmed that his situation had returned to normal and that his relationship with M. was perfectly satisfactory. In his submission of 1 December 1995 the applicant requested that the County Administrative Court order the authorities to produce a copy of M.’s care records. It did not.
28.  At a second hearing on 15 January 1996 the County Administrative Court heard Dr M.L. and S.S., M.’s teacher, at the applicant’s request. It had at its disposal an opinion dated 2 February 1996 by Dr H.L. according to which M. had been reluctant about meeting the applicant that day at his surgery. On 9 February 1996 the County Administrative Court, upholding the Board’s decision of 4 November 1994, rejected the applicant’s appeal with the following reasoning:
“The Social Welfare Board shall terminate the public care [of a child] when the need for public substitute care as stated in section 16 of the Child Welfare Act no longer exists, unless such termination is manifestly contrary to the best interests of the child. On the basis of the documents and the information transpiring at the oral hearings the need for public substitute care as stated in section 16 of the Child Welfare Act remains, since [the applicant] is not sufficiently capable of raising [M.]. The public care of the child in a [substitute] home is in accordance with the child’s best interests, considering the care needed by the child. The Social Welfare Board has therefore had to maintain the child’s placement in public care.”
29.  The applicant appealed further to the Supreme Administrative Court. In its observations in reply the Board relied on an opinion dated 29 March 1996 by Dr H.L.
30.  On 10 May 1996 the applicant’s representative lodged a complaint with the National Board of Medico-legal Affairs questioning Dr H.L.’s professional skills, but on 15 June 1998 it found no reason to take any measures. It however found that in the circumstances Dr H.L.’s opinion that the parents would not be able to raise M. even in the future seemed to be very far-reaching.
31.  In his submission of 26 June 1996 to the Supreme Administrative Court the applicant commented for the first time on M.’s care records, which had now been provided to him. On 24 September 1996 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the lower court’s decision to maintain the public care. The Supreme Administrative Court reasoned as follows:
“On the basis of the documents M. is still a psychologically and emotionally disturbed child. His care and upbringing require strong and consistent parental and guidance skills and in particular an understanding of his care needs with regard to his disturbances. According to the medical reports M. is in need of long lasting psychotherapy, which requires that his placement be decided. [The applicant] has not been able to perceive sufficiently [M.’s] disturbed behaviour and his requisite care needs. The conflicts between [the applicant], the substitute parents and the social welfare and health care professionals participating in [M.’s] care which have arisen from [their] difference of opinion have increased [M.’s] anxiety and have thereby been contrary to his best interests. On these grounds the Supreme Administrative Court considers that termination of public care would result in shortcomings in the child’s care and circumstances referred to in section 16 of the Child Welfare Act that would seriously endanger M.’s health and development. Having regard to the care that M. needs, open care measures are not suitable or possible. M.’s psychological and emotional disturbances have clearly decreased during the public care. M. has also expressed his wish to live in the substitute family. The Supreme Administrative Court makes the assessment that public care is in M.’s best interests. Thus, there is no reason to alter the outcome of the Administrative Court’s decision.”
32.  The Social Welfare Board restricted M.’s access to the applicant in its care plan of 24 November 1992 and reviewed the arrangements on 1 June 1993 and 2 March 1994. It did not make any formal decisions at this point.
33.  As noted above, on 1 June 1995 M. was moved to a substitute family. On 27 June 1995 the Social Welfare Board made the formal decision to replace M.’s institutional care with care in that substitute family. M.’s mother consented to the family placement, whereas the applicant did not. In the accompanying care plan the applicant was allowed to take M. home for one weekend a month and to telephone him once a week. M. was granted the same amount of access to his mother. Special periods of home leave were to be agreed on separately. For instance, in July 1995 M. was allowed to remain with the applicant for nine days.
34.  The applicant challenged the decision of 27 June 1995 before the County Administrative Court, inter alia, on the grounds that access restrictions could not be ordered in a care plan against which there was no separate appeal. On 18 August 1995 the County Administrative Court declined to examine the merits of this appeal, considering that the access question had not been decided in a binding manner in the care plan. The applicant’s subsequent request for a formal decision on the access restrictions was refused by the social welfare officials who interpreted the decision of the County Administrative Court as one which upheld the care plan adopted by the Board, including the access arrangements.
35.  On 4 October 1995 the applicant petitioned the Parliamentary Ombudsman (eduskunnan oikeusasiamies, riksdagens justitieombudsman) to investigate the refusal to issue a formal access restriction which the applicant could appeal against. On 10 October 1995 the applicant lodged a petition with the Social Welfare and Health Care Department of the Vaasa County Administrative Board (lääninhallitus, länsstyrelsen), arguing that the access restriction had not been issued in accordance with section 25 of the Child Welfare Act and sections 9 and 14 of the Child Welfare Decree (lastensuojeluasetus, barnskyddsförordningen; 1010/83). In its decision of 19 December 1995 the County Administrative Board considered that there had been no grounds pursuant to the said provisions for imposing the access restriction. Nonetheless, under section 19 of the Child Welfare Act the Social Welfare Board had been entitled to decide not only on the child’s care, upbringing and supervision, but also on his whereabouts. In these circumstances the Social Welfare Board should have ensured that the applicant did not get the impression that access had been restricted unnecessarily and unlawfully.
36.  Following an intervention by the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s Office the Social Welfare Board, on 12 January 1996, began preparing a formal access restriction and heard the applicant to this end. On 31 January 1996 it continued reviewing the arrangements and heard the applicant. On 2 February 1996 it obtained a written opinion by Dr H.L. Heard by the Board on 13 March 1996, the applicant opposed a social welfare official’s proposal that access be further restricted to one weekend visit every other month and one telephone conversation per week and that any access during longer holidays should be decided later. The official considered that a restriction was necessary to prevent damage to M.’s psychological development, regard being had to the fact that although having made progress he still was a psychologically and emotionally disturbed child. In those circumstances it was important that he spend a sufficient amount of time in the substitute family, who provided security. Moreover, according to the substitute parents, M. had clearly objected to visiting the applicant on several occasions. The applicant again requested a neutral examination of M.’s resistance to visiting him and support from the substitute parents. According to a witness, M.K., heard at the applicant’s request, the applicant’s and M.’s relationship had seemed perfectly normal during the latter’s visit around Christmas 1995. On 14 March 1996 the Board heard Dr H.L., the manager L.L. of the children’s home and the substitute parents in respect of the access arrangements. The applicant had not been invited to attend this hearing nor was he able to comment on these oral statements prior to the Board’s decision. The decision of the same day followed the proposal of the official and was to be in force until the end of March 1997. Access rights in respect of special periods of home leave were to be decided on separately and in June 1996 M. visited the applicant from 8 to 17 June.
37.  The applicant appealed and requested a stay of execution of the Board’s decision. He challenged, inter alia, an alleged failure to provide the Board members with his submissions for its meeting on 31 January 1996 and the failure to hear him in respect of the statements obtained on 14 March 1996. According to the Government, the applicant’s submission had been forwarded to the Board members. On 16 April 1996 the County Administrative Court refused to stay execution.
38.  In her opinions of 3 May and 25 July 1996 the Deputy Parliamentary Ombudsman considered that since the applicant initially had not requested a formal decision on access restriction the Social Welfare Board had not acted unlawfully by not issuing such a decision. However, as soon as the applicant had expressed misgivings about the extent of the access arrangements included in the care plan of June 1995 he should have been given a formal decision. As such a decision was eventually made in March 1996 the applicant’s petition did not require further action by the Ombudsman.
39.  On 14 January 1997 the County Administrative Court upheld the access restrictions imposed by the Board on 14 March 1996. Whilst considering that the applicant should have been heard in respect of the statements obtained on 14 March 1996, it found that this error was not such as to require that the Board’s decision be quashed, as the statements had been recorded in the minutes of the Board’s meeting and the applicant had been able to present his views in his appeal against the Board’s decision. The County Administrative Court did not comment on the alleged failure to provide the Board members with the applicant’s submissions for the meeting on 31 January 1996. As for the merits, it considered that more extended access arrangements would clearly jeopardise M.’s development, considering his restlessness after meeting with the applicant. This behaviour resulted from a serious conflict between M.’s loyalty to his father on the one hand and to his substitute parents on the other. No further appeal lay.
40.  On 26 March 1997 the Board, having heard the applicant, the substitute parents, Dr H.L. and the manager of the children’s home L.L both in writing and orally, made a further decision as to access. Having examined M. on 24 March 1997, Dr H.L. had concluded that M. was opposed to increasing the number of meetings with the applicant. The Board considered that one access visit per month instead of two from the biological parents had been beneficial to M., who was now showing fewer symptoms of anxiety and regressive behaviour. According to the decision the applicant was allowed to meet M. for one weekend every other month and for one week during the summer. The applicant could telephone M. once a week and M. could call the applicant whenever he wished. The decision was to be in force until the end of March 1998.
41.  The applicant appealed to the County Administrative Court, inter alia on the basis that prior to the Board’s decision he had not been heard in respect of the oral statements obtained from the manager of the children’s home and the substitute parents on 26 March 1997. On 12 September 1997 the County Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s appeal, noting that the applicant and his counsel had commented in writing on the submissions lodged by the others involved. Heard orally, the substitute parents and the manager of the children’s home had merely repeated the views expressed by them earlier which were known by the applicant. Moreover, in his appeal and rejoinder to the County Administrative Court the applicant had been able to comment further on those views as they had been recorded in the Board’s minutes. Therefore no procedural error required that the Board’s decision be quashed. As for the access arrangements, the County Administrative Court noted that M. had been examined by Dr H.L. on 24 March 1997 and that M. was opposed to extending the access. It also noted that M. had been made aware of the applicant’s negative attitude towards the substitute parents. Having regard to the fact that M. remained free to contact the applicant whenever he wished, there was no reason to extend access. The access restriction imposed on 26 March 1997 had been necessary and more extended access would have manifestly jeopardised the child’s development. No further appeal lay.
42.  In an affidavit of 14 April 1997 M.’s mother claimed that she had been induced by the social welfare official in charge of M.’s case to amend at least one written opinion relating to interaction between the applicant and M., in exchange for an extended right for the mother to telephone M. in the substitute family. According to the Government, those assertions have been denied by the Board.
43.  On 3 April 1998 the Board made a further decision as to access. It had obtained an opinion dated 2 March 1998 from Dr H.L. according to which M. had stated his preference for maintaining the previous access arrangements. As to M.’s health, Dr H.L. considered that his interaction skills had improved considerably, but that he was still insecure. M. was from a cognitive point of view still backward. It had also obtained an opinion dated 15 January 1998 by psychologist T.T., who agreed with Dr H.L.’s considerations as to M.’s cognitive abilities. The arrangements were effectively the same as described above in the decision of 26 March 1997. The applicant did not appeal.
44.  Access arrangements in 1999 were based on an agreement according to which the applicant as well as M.’s mother met M. every other month. According to the applicant, he was in practice forced to accept the agreement. He requested that he be given support in relation to the contacts with M.
45.  On 15 June 1995 the applicant requested a copy of the records pertaining to M.’s care in the children’s home. On 14 August 1995 the social welfare director O.K. refused to disclose them, considering that they “could be misunderstood” and also involved information concerning other children. However, the applicant was informed that he could acquaint himself with the care records at the children’s home. On 24 August 1995 the applicant requested that the matter be decided by the Social Welfare Board, following which the Board upheld the decision on 14 September 1995. The applicant appealed.
46.  On 24 November 1995 the County Administrative Court quashed the Board’s decision and ordered the latter to disclose M.’s care records to the applicant. The Board did not comply with this decision and appealed.
47.  On 6 June 1996 the Supreme Administrative Court, upholding the lower court’s decision, ordered the Board to disclose M.’s care records to the applicant. The records were disclosed on 12 June 1996 but by then part of them had been deleted by the manager of the children’s home.
48.  In her opinion of 25 July 1996 the Deputy Parliamentary Ombudsman considered, inter alia, that the social welfare director had handled the applicant’s request for disclosure of M.’s care records incorrectly and without due swiftness.
49.  On 6 November 2000 M.’s psychotherapy came to an end following a joint decision by himself and his therapist.
50.  In August 2001 M. started the upper level of comprehensive school. A few months later he began to have behavioural and adaptation problems at school. He received special teaching.
51.  According to the applicant, M. was placed in a children’s home for a seven or eight months’ period in 2001 due to disagreements with or between the substitute parents.
52.  In the spring of 2002 M. was examined at the Clinic and he was admitted to it during the summer of 2002. He received treatment until 2 June 2003 whereupon he was transferred to a home for children and young people. In August 2003 he went back to the Clinic for one month. On 28 December 2003 he returned to the Clinic due to his disoriented, aggressive and psychotic behaviour. He was given medicine and he was also restrained and secluded. Subsequently, he was transferred to a unit for young persons at a mental hospital in which he remained until he turned eighteen in late 2005.